APLOGIES

The Fleapit won't be updated for a while. I have serious problems in the family. Can't access my e-mail this morning but will contact personal friends as soon as possible. Hope to be back soon.

Weaverman

THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE (2005)

How accurate should a biopic be ? To be honest, I don't really care one way or the other. I tend to go along with John Ford's dictum "When the legend becomes fact - print the legend." Once you invent dialogue the film becomes fiction anyway and when you get to the nitty gritty no film is going to present more than a thumbnail sketch of its subject. I really know very little about Bettie Page's life but this film seems to me to do justice to her reputation as "Pinup Queen of the Universe" and the film seems to capture the appeal of her work much in the same way that Tim Burton's ED WOOD captured the work of its chosen subject. Everybody seems to agree that Bettie was pretty naive about the nature of her bondage photos (which were only a part of her work) and the film suggests that if she later had doubts about the influence such photos had she certainly did not have such qualms about her more mainstream pinup pictures - even the nude ones after her Born Again Christian experience. It is refreshing to see that Bettie's faith is accepted by the film rather than used to ridicule her. The simplicity of her life long religious belief is shown as an element in her make-up. Bettie is, I think, remembered today for the "fun" element in her photos, even the bondage stuff has a camp naivity (certainly compared to some of the sicko stuff of today). The film is very well directed by Mary Harron (who also co-wrote) and has a genuinely 50's feel to it with gritty b/w New York scenes and imaginatively used colour sequences (Harron is a Sam Fuller fan and it shows) and there is not a bad performance in the movie with Gretchen Mol absolutely outstanding as Bettie. Also I have to mention the wonderful soundtrack of records by such luminaries as Peggy Lee, Artie Shaw, Art Pepper, Patsy Cline and Julie London. Rating ****

300 (2006)

Well, did I enjoy it ? Yes, I did. Do I think it is a great movie ? No, I don't. It was enjoyable in the same way that SIN CITY was enjoyable. The problem for me, maybe, is that I'm just not a big comic book/graphic novel fan and however technically brilliant these films may be I really see nothing beneath the surface. It may well be that Frank Miller and Zack Snyder have no intention of giving any depth to the story (and I really am a sucker for last stand stories like ZULU or THE ALAMO) but even if they did the computer enhanced images mitigate against it - whatever is they do it will always be a comic book movie - but as such it is good fun. Years back I predicted that we would one day be seeing new movies starring people like Humphrey Bogart or computerised realistic facsimiles of them and this film and others like SIN CITY or BEOWULF certainly point in that direction. If they can do it with live actors it won't belong before they do it with the dead. They can be fun entertainment (and there is always room for that) but behind the almost robotic acting there is no soul. Rating ***

Mister Monster writes :

Yes , I always LOVED to see men in skirts running around and lopping arms off.....even if computer generated !!I agree , not much of a film ...and I would have RATHER seen 300 SPARTANS again anyway on the BIG screen , but sometimes just pure entertainment is worth the $9.00

Weaverman says :

Just knew you'd love watching this one, Mister Monster! I agree that 300 SPARTANS is a better film although I have to admit that it took 300 to make me realise it! But I don't want to distract from the new film's entertainment value. I hear that Iran got upset at the way their ancestors were depicted - they should try being English and watching Mel Gibson films!

Paleo-Cinema

Take a few moments to tear yourself away from the fleapit and visit Paleo-Cinema. Paleo is a blog by Australian film buff Terry Frost. Terry describes himself thus : "Movie buff, former professional Dungeons and Dragons player, Ditmar Award winning passionate amateur writer, Francophile, iconoclast and passionate atheist, Mr Frost lives in a palatial home in Melbourne surrounded by albino peacocks, capuchin monkeys and deformed manservants with amputated tongues." Get all Terry's news from his blog and then click onto his podcast to listen to the man himself tell you about his favourite movies! You'll find it addictive. At the moment Terry is talking about non-Bond spy movies. You can link directly to the blog and podcast from this page.

Terry Frost Writes : Glad you like my humble rants. The next one should be out in a couple of days. I'm discussing Italian Neorealist cinema and the ouerve of Gerry Anderson in the same podcast.

MYSTERY PICTURE

Well, there were no takers in the competition and the only response I had was a bit of whingeing from across the Atlantic! The answer was that the picture is a painting of the location for Marcel Carne's masterful tragedy of Parisian low-life HOTEL DU NORD (1938). The Hotel du Nord itself can be seen in the picture, it's name slihtly obscured by the words of he blog description. Although the hotel is a real building, it's location on the bank of the canal made the filming difficult so a replica of the whole area was built in a studio to make things easier. One admirer of the film used to cycle past the hotel every day and commented that the set looked more realistic than the real location! Reel life rather than Real Life!

THE CREATURE WITH THE ATOM BRAIN (1955)

Edward L.Cahn rarely, if ever, ventured into the world of "A" features, spending his days knee deep in low-budget Westerns, horror and Sci-fi. This film, produced by "Jungle" Sam Katzman is one of his better efforts thanks to a story that relies far less on padding than is usual for this kind of production. It reminded me of a mixture of a zombie movie and DRAGNET (although if Jack Webb had written and starred it would have been a better movie) as cops track down a gangster who is using a tame German scientist (Gregory Gaye, looking for all the world like an elderly Conrad Veidt or one of Lang's super criminals) to producing Zombies to carry out revenge on his former associates. It's pretty tame by George Romero standards but it moves at a fair lick towards its climax as a small army of Zombies break out from the laboratory to dike it out with the polices. Top-liner is the reliable Richard Denning (we know he's reliable because he smokes a pipe) in the days before he retired to Hawaii to share the Governor's job with Lew Ayres in Hawaii 5-0. Rating **

MYSTERY PICTURE

O.K. you've looked at it long enough.....Can anybody tell me what the picture behind the title of this blog is ? Clue is that the painting is the set of a classic film. If you can tell me what it is by midnight (my time - GMT) on Monday I will send you a copy of the film! The answer is in the picture.

NOSFERATU (1922)

Well, it's here! and for the most part the news is good. The Masters of Cinema DVD series has released the newly restored version of F.W.Murnau's NOSFERATU and it is great to be able to report that this is a beautiful restoration by Luciano Berriatua - previously unseen shots, the correct projection speed, no pulsating of the image and the absolute minimum of scratches. In addition we have the original inter-titles where possible and where not there are sympathetic recreations based on the original text. Last and by no means least we have the original musical score written by Hans Erdmann which has been unheard for eighty five years. Previously, inferior prints of the film have been released with electronic score, jazz score and a new score written by James Bernard of Hammer Film fame. Enough to say that Erdmann's score magnificently eclipses all these. Included in the packaging is an eighty-page book containing several articles on the film, a newly translated piece on vampires by the film's producer Albin Grau and notes on the restortation.

Why then do I say that for the most part it is good news? Well, also included in the release is the documentary THE LANGUAGE OF SHADOWS by Luciano Berriatua which, for the most part is highly entertaining and informative about the career of Murnau which manages to dig up some fascinating stills from the director's lost films like DER JANUSKOPF (and, yes, they do manage to find one of Bela Lugosi) with Conrad Veidt, DER BUCKLIGE UND DIE TANZERIN and one of the few surviving clips from SATANAS. The documentary also spend a fair amount of time talking about the film's producer Albin Grau and his involvement with ritual magic as a member of the O.T.O. and colleague of Aleister Crowley...the problem is that the film refers to Grau being sixty-six years old when he met Murnau and later tells us that he was still involved in the occult when he died in 1971. 1971 ? Well, that would have made him about One 115 years old at the time of his death! All sources I have checked say that Grau died in Buchenwald concentration camp during World War Two. One must wonder about the accuracy of the other information. Then we come to the feature commentary by R.Dixon Smith and Brad Stevens which, in almost the first sentence, tells us that "Nosferatu" is a Hungarian word for the undead. Sorry, fellas, it isn't. It is a completely made up word and is, I am assured by a Hungarian Count of my acquaintance (honest), nothing to do with the Hungarian language. I soon gave up on these two as the commentary became more and more banal and boring. One of the two had an obsession with arches in the film and seemed to attach great significance to them "Look! another arch!" and with the theory that Count Orlok is a mirror image of the film's hero Hutter...a theory that doesn't to cut the mustard for me. The other guy gets into a conversation with himself about whether of not Murnau was an expressionist or not. No, but NOSFERATU is an expressionist film despite its realistic setting is his conclusion and he gets very excited when he sees a crooked bookcase or a high chairback "Look an expressionistic chair!" I think most people might have liked a bit of background information on Max Schreck!

But, forget the commentary, turn out the lights, pull the curtains and enjoy what remains after eighty-five years one of the greatest German silent films and one of the classics of the horror genre. Rating for NOSFERATU *****

BROTHER (2000)

Whether you love him or hate him once you've seen a Takeshi Kitano movie it's hard to ignore him. He is one of the true maverick's of todays cinema. For my money he's one of the coolest guys around since Lee Marvin. Here Takeshi returns to some of the themes of hisearlier classic SONATINE. His acting alter-ego Beat Takeshi plays a Yakuza who is forced to leave Japan and go to Los Angeles. Once there he teams up with his half brother and begins to build a crime crew that consists of both Japanese and Blacks.Joining forces with the local "Little Tokyo" crimelord he goes from success until finally his gang over reach themselves in taking on the mafia. The finale will offer no real surprises if you are familiar with Takeshi's brand of existential/fatalist crime movies. The film is very violent....in addition to Takeshi's trademark shock bursts of violent gunfire the film notches up stabbings, explosions, beheadings and even death by chopstick. The body count is quite awesome. If you have not samples Takeshi's work and you like crime films this is a good place to start. This or SONATINE. If you like historical Japanese films I suggest you check out the director/actor's re-imagining of the ZATOICHI samurai films. I promise you that you won't see the climax of that coming! Loved it. Rating ****

PARIS NOUS APPARTIENT/Paris Belongs to Us (1960)

Win some, lose some. Back in the late Sixties a moviegoing friend told me that he though Jaques Rivette's PARIS NOUS APPARTIENT was one of the most boring films he'd ever seen. Naturally I couldn't wait to see it. For some reason it has taken me until now to catch up with it and I have to say that my friend's judgement on the film seems pretty sound. Yes, yes, I know it is greatly admired in some circles and is regarded as a key film of the nouvelle vogue, but it didn't work for me. A young girl(played by the extraordinarily ordinary Betty Shneider) is a member of a theatrical troupe who endlessly rehearse Shakespeare's "Pericles" - the forthcoming production of which seems to hold the fate of the world in its hands. She learns by accident of a conspiracy which her fellow actors and her brother seem aware of but are unwilling to explain to her. People die, are suspected of treachery and nobody seems willing to accept any events at face value. Well, I own up to slipping off to dreamland several times while attempting to watch the film and this did not help my understanding of the plot (which is obviously meant to be cryptic) but neither did the film make me want to wake up and pay attention. The disc from the BFI contains also an earlier short film by Rivette (COUP DE BERGER) from 1957 and an interesting appreciation of the director which initially sparked my interest but which was totally negated by watching the film itself. Rating **

LES ENFANTS TERRIBLES (1950)

It is quite wonderful to find a film which, although you can't quite figure it out on first viewing, you recognise immediately as a classic. I happily admit to not understanding much of LES ENFANTS TERRIBLES. I am a great admirer of both Jean Cocteau (who wrote the original novel) and Jean-Pierre Melville (who directed the film) and I have waited years to see this. As it was made early in Melville's career I think I expected that Cocteau was the true auteur behind this production but it seems that Melville was very much in charge, taking care that Cocteau (who visited the set most days) did not dominate the production - insisting on his own ending rather than Cocteau's preferred one and demanding, when Cocteau did one day of shooting due to Melville being unwell, that the poet film nothing unless he followed Melvilles's instructions to the letter. One writer has pointed out that this gives the film a somewhat schizophrenic atmosphere. Maybe it does but that does not automatically harm what is was going to be a pretty weird movie anyway. A brother and sister (probably incestuous) live in a Paris apartment with their dying mother. The boy is sixteen (played by Cocteau's former lover Edouard Dermithe - Cegeste of the ORPHEE movies - who was twenty five at the time and looks too old to be wearing short pants in the early scenes) and his sister (the wonderful Nicole Stephane) slightly older. Their mother dies, they go to the seaside with a friend, they shoplift and the girl becomes a model. She brings home a girl as a lodger but her brother is disturbed because the girl reminds him of an effeminate young man who once injured him with a snowball (are you still with me ?). The sister marries a rich American who croons at the piano (the fact that he looks like a young Billy Joel adds to the surrealism) and who is killed soon after the wedding. The siblings and their two friends move into the American's huge mansion where they seemingly camp out (no pun intended) in the half empty rooms - where secrets are revealed and mind games played that move the film it its inevitable tragic finale. As the film progresses it becomes more surrealist and dreamlike with Cocteau's narration suggesting it is all a performance anyway. The whole thing is totally hypnotic on many levels and certainly isn't your basic Saturday night at the moves fare. It is, perhaps, not 100% successful but if you are a Cocteau fan you will love it, if you are a Melville fan you'll want to see it, if you are a fan of classic cinema you won't want to miss it. The BFI DVD also contains a moving interview with Nicole Stephane and a commentary which I look forward to hearing. Rating ****

POINT BLANK (1967)

Can it really be that John Boorman's POINT BLANK was released in 1967? Can it really be forty years old? I had not seen it for a few years and when I sat down to watch it last night I was astonished at how great it looks - every bit as fresh and innovative as it did on its first viewing. It simply hasn't aged. Based on Richard Stark's novel "The Hunter"(which was also the basis of Mel Gibson's entertaining but relatively minor PAYBACK) the film tells the story of Walker who is double-crossed by his wife and best friend and left for dead during a heist. Walker returns to take revenge and claim his $93,000 share of the loot ("Well, somebody's gotta pay") in what, on the surface seems a simple plot. But unlike many crime films of the time John Boorman sets out to engage his audience on a far deeper level than plain story-telling. Boorman's chosen style demands that the viewer meets the film half way. It is one of those films where the world seems slightly off kilter - the scene where Walker visits his ex-wife's apartment is a good example. It is fully furnished, she kills herself, the apartment is unfurnished, the body vanishes. Of course, it is very much a film about memory and Boorman himself has said that the interpretation that Walker really does die in the pre-credit sequence and then returns from the dead is a perfectly valid interpretation. Walker is played by Lee Marvin, giving one of his greatest performances, proving what Robert Mitchum always knew : Less is more. Simply one of the key American films of the Sixties if not of all time. Rating *****

AUTUMN SONATA/Hostsonaten (1979)

Ever since I saw my first Bergman film back in the early 60's I've known that his films are not an easy ride. They are challenging and shocking, both in content and form. AUTUMN SONATA is one of Bergman's "chamber" pieces. Ingrid Bergman (in her last film performance) plays a famous concert pianist who goes to visit her daughter (Liv Ullman) who is married to a clergyman and who looks after her handicapped sister. Most of the film takes the form of a conversation between mother and daughter during one night. The film is, despite the visual limitations of the setting, always highly cinematic. Bergman is on record as being an admirer of the old Universal horror films and, while AUTUMN SONATA, cannot be regarded as a near genre piece (as, for instance, HOUR OF THE WOLF and THE MAGICIAN can) the film is a horror film of sorts (Bergman includes one of his nightmare sequences) but this is the true horror of the soul rather than a flight of gothic fantasy. The scene when Ullman (surely among the greatest actresses of all time) finally unleashes her tirade of hatred, hurt and resentment agains her mother is truly amazing. I suddenly realised that I had actually recoiled into my chair with my hand thrown across my mouth because I felt that I was witnessing something disturbing, personal and shocking. Few films have ever affected me in that way. It is an astonishing piece of acting, writing and directing. The scarey thing is that for a brief moment I was, in my mind, unleashing some of the issues that were left unresolved between myself and my own parents. Uncomfortable but undeniably great. Rating *****

Cerpts wrote :

There's a reason why David Byrne and co. chose to call their band "Talking Heads": because there's very few more compelling things than two people talking. I'll have to check this film out.

Weaverman says :

Be prepared to suffer!

DR. MOREAU'S HOUSE OF PAIN (2003)

A sequel to H.G.Wells' oft filmed THE ISLAND OF DR.MOREAU, this straight to video movie by Charles Band holds some pleasant surprises. First, one is surprised by the rather classy credits showing vintage clips of Los Angeles (including Boris Karloff and C.Aubrey Smith at a film premiere) and the fact that the film is set uring the 1940's. The story has Dr.Moreau being held captive by his own manimals in an old sanitarium near Los Angeles. Into this wanders our hero, a young boxer, looking for his missing brother (the film has the odd feeling of starting halfway through the plot) with the aide af his girlfriend and a female reporter. Band livens things up a bit with odd camera angles and some, maybe unintentionally, funny dialogue. There's a bit of sex, hints of bestiality, some mild gore and some alarming lapses of continuity. Throw in some awful makeup and non-existent acting and a relatively short running time. None of these elements really add up to much but in all honesty I was never bored. Rating *

DRACULA IN ISTANBUL/Drakula Istanbul'da (1953)

I first read about this film in the pages of "Famous Monsters of Filmland" and later impressed a Turkish friend by actually having heard of it and being able to name the star! I suppose that like many films I never expected to actually see DRACULA IN ISTANBUL has found a special place in my heart. The copy I finally managed to get hold of is pretty poor quality, looking like a third or fourth generation video from a television broadcast. It is just possible that this and the lack of sub-titles have coloured my perception of the film. Luckily, the plot, for most of the film, follows Stoker's original novel but that doesn't make the viewing any more enjoyable. DRACULA IN ISTANBUL is hard to get enthusiastic about for any reason. Poor sets, pretty poor acting and overlong (it seemed to go on for hours) with direction by Mehmet Muhtar which is virtually non existent. As I've said, my copy was pretty poor but I doubt if a better one would change my opinion. Atif Kaptan (according to the Imdb this was his only horror film) is as wooden in the role of Dracula as his coffin. Rating *

THE HAUNTING (1963)

My Halloween film this year is Robert Wise's film version of Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House". I'm sure this choice won't surprise anybody who loves horror movies. If I said it was the best haunted house film of all time I wouldn't get much of an argument and I'd only be repeating what is being said on countless other movie review sites on the internet. So, I'm not going to actually review it further than to say that if you have not seen it then do so, preferably alone, preferably in the dark. I watched it tonight, alone in the dark, and it still works wonderfully. Robert Wise learned his art as a director from the best in the business and like Val Lewton, his first producer, he knew that what you don't see can be a lot scarier than all the blood and gore in Hollywood. This is something that was completely misunderstood by the dreadful spfx driven remake of a few years ago. Somewhere out there Hill House is still standing and whatever walks there walks alone. Happy Halloween! Rating *****

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN (1957)

What makes Jack Arnold's THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN such an effective movie ? I first saw it at a school film society showing around 1960 and today it has lost none of its power. Given that the subject lends itself to humour and the film tends, in the minds of those who only know the title, to be lumped in with such lesser movies as ATTACK OF THE FIFTY FOOT WOMAN and THE AMAZING COLOSSAL MAN, why does the film still work so well today ? Arnold seems well aware that he is walking a narrow path between seriousness and humour and he avoids going in for any hint of self parody. When we first realise that Scott Carey (played so well by Grant Williams) has shrunk so much that he is living in a doll's house we smile at the idea but neither Arnold nor Richard Matheson's script allows for cheap jokes and we are not permitted for one minute to lose sight of Carey's awful predicament thanks to the way his psychological deterioration is presented. We feel involved enough that to an extent we are shrinking along with Carey. As he struggles to attract the attention of his wife and brother in the flooded cellar that has become his world we are willing them to notice him. But the film offers no safe antidote, no last minute rescue, no comfort that the world has returned to normal. Jack Arnold has an enviable reputation as a director of 50's sci-fi but even among his impressive list of credits THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN stands out as something very special. Rating ****

THE ST.VALENTINE'S DAY MASSACRE (1967)

This was Roger Corman;s first venture into the world of big budgets (well, big for him) and the original news releases for the movie announced Marlon Brando for the role of Al Capone. With THE GODFATHER just around the corner this was probably a wise decision by Brando, although one can't hyelp but think that he would have improved Corman's film immeasureably.
Not that it is bad. In fact it is often very good indeed with some impressive set pieces and a fun cast list that includes many of the Corman stock company including Bruce Dern, Dick Miller, Leo Gordon, Barboura Morris and (if you don't blink) Jack Nicholson. Corman, working from a script by Howard Browne, takes the approach of TV's THE UNTOUCHABLES by having a narration that sets time and place and gives us biographical information about the various characters. The opening with Barboura Morris hearing a strange noise and wandering out into the snow to find a garage full of dead people down the block is great and movie fans will have a ball trying to count how many scenes Corman rips off from William Wellman's 1931 THE PUBLIC ENEMY - most obvious is the scene where George Segal terrorizes a bar owner into changing his beer supplier, it's a straight steal of the similar scene in the Wellman movie. But the films weakness comes from the miscasting and/or overacting of its two leads, Jason Robards and George Segal. Robards is both far to slim and old to be the Al Capone of 1929 and his scowling, smirking and grimacing become more tedious with each viewing. A few years later Corman would produce another Howard Browne script called CAPONE using footage from this film and featuring Ben Gazzara as a much more believable scarface (although the film itself was inferior to the one reviewed here). Segal looks like he is enjoying himself immensely as killer Pete Gusenberg but, as with Robards, his mugging goes way over the top, especially compared to the general underplaying of the rest of the cast. But there is a lot to enjoy here nonetheless and if you are a Corman fan anyway......Rating ***

JEAN RENOIR SILENTS (1927/28)

Included as extras on the DVD of LA GRANDE ILLUSION are two interesting shorts by the director Jean Renoir. The first is a version of Hans Andersen's tale "The Little Match Girl". LA PETITE MARCHANDE D'ALLUMETES (Rating ***) was co-directed by Renoir in 1928 with Jean Tedesco. Following the plot of Andersen's story the film features a long special effects sequence where Karen, the little match girl dreams that toys come to life and she falls in love with a toy soldier and is pursued through the clouds by death in the form of a hussar. The second film is the surreal short SUR UN DE CHARLESTON (Rating **) in which, in the year 2028, an African explorer (played in minstrel makeup by black performer Johnny Huggins) sets out to explore Paris which has become a decaying city populated by white savages. He lands his sphere like flying machine and is greeted by a white girl and her pet ape. She proceeds to teach him the Charleston which he sees as a sign of the decline of European civilisation and believes is a prelude to her eating him! Other reviews have commented that Renoir's wife Catherine Hessling, who stars in both films, was a poor actress and a hopeless dancer. Personally I found her appealing and charming in both films. To add to the surrealism of the frenetic dancing in this silent musical there is no musical soundtrack.

THE LADY AND THE MONSTER (1944)

A real rarity, certainly in England, is George Sherman's THE LADY AND THE MONSTER which is an adaption of Curt Siodmak's sci-fi novel "Donovan's Brain" which has been filmed twice since; first as DONOVAN'S BRAIN in the Fifties and then as VENGEANCE in the Sixties. Sherman's version is probably the least of the three but need not be dismissed out of hand. It's biggest drawbacks are Vera Hruba Ralston as the heroine and that even a 86 minutes it drags a bit in the middle. On the plus side is the atmospheric photography which gives the film a film noir flavor and the nice laboratory sets. Richard Arlen is quite effective as the doctor who becomes possessed by the brain of a dead millionaire although it is easy to see why Arlen had descended into B-movies by this time. The biggest plus that the film has is the presence of Erich Von Stroheim as the obsessive Dr.Mueller. Von Stroheim was probably, by his own estimation, slumming when he made this movie for Republic but it really doesn't show in his performance. He is one of those actors who can totally dominate any scene he is in and can lift a routine movie beyond its own expectations.If you are a horror movie fan or simply a collector of curiousities then THE LADY AND THE MONSTER is worth a look. Rating **

YOU KNOW MY NAME (1999)

I've been waiting to see this movie - ever since I read Matt Braun's novel of the same name. I really don't know if there is an actual connection between the two beyond the subject. The film, like the book, deals with the latter years of real-life United States Marshal William Matthew Tilghman. Tilghman is a character who has fascinated me for years and while I felt that Braun's novel (which covers a longer period than the film)
was superior, John Kent Harrison's movie is very entertaining.This is in no small part due to the performance of its star (and producer) Sam Elliott. Over the years Elliott has proved himself a real star in a whole series of memorable made-for-tv Westerns and here he is totally convincing as the ageing lawman who is hired by citizens to clean-up the boom town of Cromwell, Oklahoma. The film is infused by a romantic view of the passing of the Old West (the film is set in 1924) and the "man out of time" theme that has been used often (and generally well, I feel) in many Westerns since the late Sixties. As a fan of Westerns and True West I'd love to see Tilghman's career covered by a more detailed film. Tilghman was previously played by Rod Steiger in Lamont Johnson's under-rated CATTLE ANNIE AND LITTLE BRITCHES. Tilghman himself became a film director and between 1908 and 1915 he made several movies, among them THE PASSING OF THE OKLAHOMA OUTLAWS in which he played himself. This aspect of his career is partly covered by YOU KNOW MY NAME. Rating ***

THE FACE OF ANOTHER/Tanin no kao (1966)

Hiroshi Teshigahara's THE FACE OF ANOTHER shares some things in common with Jed Mercurio's version of FRANKENSTEIN although the films exist on entirely different levels of artistic achievement. Both explore the possibilities of synthetic flesh, identity and our releationship with a creator. A man loses his face in an industrial accident and becomes a guinea pig in an experiment using an artificial face - a mask so lifelike that it is almost undetectable. The film is a meditation on how much our personality is formed by our appearance, how our face/mask hides our real self from even our closest friends, relatives and lovers and how we might behave if we were free of the constraints placed on us by the face that we show to the world. Would our actual personalities change. Does the personality shape the face or vice versa? As in FRANKENSTEIN - the book rather than version reviewed below - the central character of this film sees himself in his new life as the product of a creator, a doctor (the God metaphor is not strained), and as we break free from our parents/circmstance/God so must he. "I am no one" he tells an arresting policmen just before the film's chilling conclusion. The film is beautifully directed and stunningly shot in crisp monochrome images. Rating *****

FRANKENSTEIN (2007)

Do we really need a new Frankenstein film ? Well, after seeing this new production made for British television you'll probably say no. To be honest, while I watched it I was quite enjoying it but I realised later that the pleasure I got was not because it was particularly enthralling but I was carried away doing that old fan thing of picking out all the in-jokes. Written and directed by Jed Mecurio, himself a former doctor, this modernised version of Mary Shelley's classic has Dr.Victoria Frankenstein injecting her dying son's DNA into some artificial flesh she is growing in the lab where she works for Dr.Pretorius. Her assistant is an oriental named E. Gore.......get the idea ? Yeah, that's about as subtle as it gets. Some of the scenes are nicely handled (I particularly liked the death of Dr.Waldman) but none of them are very original. The monster (played by Julian Beach) looks remarkably like a malignant E.T. and any thought I had that this was accidental was soon dispelled when the film blatantly rips of the garden shed scene from Spielberg's film. I admit to laughing out loud at the way Mecurio manages to explain why it becomes necessary to fit a bolt in the creature's neck. Performances are not noteworthy with Helen McCrory rather colourless as Frankenstein and the usually reliable Neil Pearson totally miscast as Dr.Waldman. If you are not a regular Frankie fan then you may really like it and if you are a follower of the genre you may be entertained just picking up on all the references and shouting at the screen that Kevin Connor and Luke Goss, amazingly, did it a lot better a few years back. Rating *

Son of Fleapit of the Mind

If you are returning to the fleapit after an absence of more than a day you will be wondering what has happened. Well, after much soul searching, Weaverman decided that he wasn't as interested in his other blog (Weaver's Loom) as he should be and wanted to concentrate on the fleapit. While deleting The Loom blog I clicked on the wrong button and.....well, all my reviews disappeared! Everything disappeared! I just sat there staring at the empty monitor screen telling myself very calmly that it hadn't happened. But, of course, it had. You have to pick yourself up, dust yourself down and start all over again. I have decided not to attempt to re-write my reviews until I see those movies again (and, in most cases, I know I will). My plan to re-see and review all the Roger Corman/Edgar Allan Poe series before Halloween is now abandoned, my penance for being such a clutz! So it all starts again here.